Earlier this week, the Brady Center's Legal Action Project attorneys Jonathan Lowy and Alla Lefkowitz withdrew from a Wisconsin lawsuit after inadmissible evidence was published on Brady’s website in violation of Wisconsin’s rules of professional conduct concerning trial publicity.

According to an article on the Journal Sentinel's website, Milwaukee County Judge Jeffrey Conen may have given Lowy and Lefkowitz the benefit of the doubt when he said, “I don't how things are practiced in Washington, D.C., or New York or anywhere else, but out here in the Midwest we have certain rules.” Judge Conen’s reference to Washington, D.C. and New York was likely due to those being the jurisdictions of Lowy’s and Lefkowitz’s bar membership, respectively.

While it wasn’t unreasonable for Judge Conen to suppose that the Brady attorneys may have been unfamiliar with Wisconsin legal ethics and rules of conduct, all attorneys are charged with understanding ethical rules in the jurisdiction in which they’re licensed. In this case, the Wisconsin rules Lowy and Lefkowitz transgressed mirror similar rules in their own states of licensure, rules with which they are presumably familiar.

"I don't how things are practiced in Washington, D.C., or New York or anywhere else, but out here in the Midwest we have certain rules." - Milwaukee County Judge Jeffrey Conen

Wisconsin's rule concerning trial publicity in part provides that “[a] lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.” This rule is identical to the American Bar Association’s model rule of professional conduct on the same topic: Rule 3.6. To clear up any potential ambiguity, both the Wisconsin rule and the ABA model rule specifically mention publication of inadmissible evidence as a potential grounds for violation of the rules. Both New York and Washington, D.C. have substantially similar rules concerning trial publicity.

The Brady attorneys’ behavior is typical of a general apathy shared by many anti-gun activists toward legal rules or principles they find objectionable or inconvenient. In fact, the Wisconsin case that the Brady attorneys withdrew from is an attempt to punish a Federal Firearms Licensee for the criminal acts of a third party, which is exactly the type of case that Congress meant to stop through passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ("PLCAA").

The PLCAA was itself a response to anti-gun litigators' attempts to get courts to break a centuries old common law tort rule that prevented holding an individual liable for the criminal acts of a third party. While often portrayed as a special interest immunity to protect the gun industry, the PLCAA did nothing more than ensure even application of this common law rule throughout the United States. This in turn protects firearms dealers, manufacturers and importers, many of which businesses could be forced to close by the mere threat of costly litigation, from frivolous lawsuits brought by unscrupulous anti-gun litigators who put their hatred of guns above their oaths to uphold the law.

Unfortunately, the withdrawal of Brady’s attorneys does not necessarily signal the end of the suit … or the end of Brady's freewheeling anti-gun tactics.

Just months after pushing for the passage of Initiative 1639 to impose severe regulations on purchasing and possessing semi-automatic firearms, Attorney General Bob Ferguson has now introduced legislation that would outright ban commonly owned semi-automatic ...

Pittsburgh City Council member Corey O’Connor wants local residents to relinquish important aspects of their Second Amendment rights. If they refuse, he would have it cost them their liberty and treasure. But O’Connor himself apparently ...

On January 8, two bills were introduced in Congress to impose so-called "universal" background checks. The bills, H.R. 8 and S. 42, are being misleadingly described as simply requiring background checks on all sales of firearms, but this is ...

NRA is often vilified by the gun-ban community and its supporters in the mainstream, legacy media as an “extremist” organization because of its steadfast defense of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. A simple ...

On Wednesday, longtime gun control extremist Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced the latest version of her perennial bid to rid America of its most popular types of rifles, as well as the standard capacity magazines that ...

In her opening day speech to state lawmakers, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham called on them to pass various gun control proposals that she supported on the campaign trail and which have been filed in the ...

Today, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed Senate Bill 337 into law. Passed by the previous legislature in 2018, SB 337 will establish a firearm registry and shut down your local gun stores with government red tape. Senate ...

This week, the Virginia Senate Committee on Courts of Justice and the House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee heard and voted to defeat many of Governor Ralph Northam’s requested gun control bills.

More Like This From Around The NRA

Recently two bills were introduced in Congress to impose so-called "universal" background checks. The bills,H.R. 8andS. 42, are being misleadingly described as simply requiring background checks on all sales of firearms, but this is just a small part of what these overbroad pieces of legislation would do.

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.